Comments by "Luis Aldamiz" (@LuisAldamiz) on "Celtic History Decoded"
channel.
-
14
-
The oldest known lactase persistance alleles are from the Chalcolithic Basque Country, in fact from the southern Ebro River "frontier" area and from two different "military cemeteries". In both cases the largest population (surely representing Sardinian-like EEF peoples, known to have lived in the area from other sites like Atapuerca) was lactose intolerant (CC allele) and a minority population carried instead the lactose tolerance allele in double form (TT), only two (2/19) individual in the latest of the sites (San Juan Ante Porta Latinam) carried the mixed genetics (lactose tolerant for practical purposes anyhow, CT) and none did in the older site of Longar, emphasizing that these were two distinct populations that had no or barely admixed with each other in those days (c. 2500-3000 BCE, roughly the same dates of earliest Indoeuropean expansion). The second (minority and fully lactose tolerant) population was probably proto-Basque (i.e. admixed with Paleouropeans at c. 40%). Ref. Theo S. Plantiga et al., Low prevalence of lactase persistence in Neolithic South-West Europe. European Journal of Human Genetics 2012.
Another issue here pertains to horse domestication: while it's true that the Western or Central Eurasian steppe was a key area of horse domestication and that it provides most of modern horses' genetic roots, there is a secondary area that corresponds roughly with the Iberian Peninsula and that also contributes to modern horse genetics via mtDNA (but not Y-DNA). See: Vera Warmuth et al., European Domestic Horses Originated in Two Holocene Refugia. PLoS ONE 2011.
The paper produced high ancestral mtDNA diversity in North Iberia and South France but the archaeological record rather suggest South Iberia as the origin, because there were plenty of horse remains in many sites of that area in the early Chalcolithic (again roughly the same date as the earliest Indoeuropean expansions).
12
-
6
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
@mr.purple1779 - What are you talking about now: the Pazyrk culture's genetics?
I didn't look at any map because I went cursorily on the matter to what Wikipedia says, which is quite extensive and includes a chart of autosomal DNA, which clearly shows that it is Uralic-like and specifically Nganassan-like (North Central Siberia modernly but maybe more widespread in the past).
There's a related issue you may not know that is how West Siberia (taiga area, not the steppe, which remained strictly Indoeuropean AFAIK) went from Uralic to some sort of Altaic (probably Tungusic) in the Bronze Age (Seima-Turbino culture, which arose near Mongolia, maybe bc of Western influence, called Odinovo culture in West Siberia) and then back again to Uralic-like all the way into the local version of Andronovo culture (early Indo-Aryans surely, Indo-Aryan language branch has particularly strong Uralic influence BTW). Later towards the Scythian period they became more European-like instead. So, in short, the shift was Uralic > Tungusic > Uralic (culturally associated to Indo-Aryans) > Scythian (European genetics) > Uralic again (modern Ugrics).
This was an mtDNA only study: V.I. Molodin et al., "Human migrations in the southern region of the West Siberian Plain during the Bronze Age: Archaeological, palaeogenetic and anthropological data". Part of a wider book published by De Gruyter (2013), which was back in the day freely available online.
ANE is a ghost component: there was no real ANE population, closest would be Gravettian Siberians like Ma'lta boy. It's like representing modern populations of Europe with Paleolithic Europeans, not the Epipaleolithic WHG but with Gravettians and Aurignacians (of which we know the genetics but we don't use them because we have much better more recent samples). ANE tells us about a very ancient link between Europe (and other places) Siberia and Native Americans but it's not a good reference component.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Ajemone My take is that "Basl Eurasian" is nothing but Dinka-like NE African admixture, which several studies suggested in their supplementary data analyses and not a true West Asian leftover from the Africa->Asia migration.
Why?
1. The definition of "Basal Eurasian" does not exclude aboriginal Africans, only those that are more distant than the NE Africans such as Nigerians or Mbuti. It's just an assumption that they represent a leftover population in West Asia, they can also represent the "L3" source population in NE Africa rather.
2. Neanderthals really took over West Asia c. 70,000 years ago: we don't just see them in Central Asia and Iran but also as far south as Yemen (via Mousterian tools, no known human remains yet), so there's very little room for true Basal Eurasians to have remained in West Asia: the marshes that are now the Persian Gulf and little else. The NE African source seems more parsimonious (Occam's razor).
I presume therefore that, when the Asian modern humans came back c. 50,000 BP and repeatedly admixed matrilineally with (1st) Asians from the Pakistan area with Y-DNA J, T, H and probably also pre-G and (2nd) with Africans from the Egypt area with Y-DNA E1b (which also contributed very minor L(xM,N) mtDNA surely but not much), they incorporated some African autosomal genetics as well (logically) and those are the "Basal Eurasian" ghost component, which is rather proto-Eurasian: related to the macro-Asian genetics in the same way as "Basal Eurasian" but from Africa (roughly Egypt, maybe also other areas of the Red Sea region) rather than from West Asia.
You mention that "Egypt is the country with the most Basal Eurasians". I'm not aware of that study (or blog analysis maybe?) but makes all sense to me if it is, as I believe, the actual source of the "Basal Eurasian" component, which I'd much rather call "proto-Asian" or something like that, really.
As a side note: I also believe that that extra (minor but not irrelevant) African admixture into West Eurasians significantly increased our genetic diversity relative to the peoples of East Asia and Australasia (those of South Asia or even the Amerinds have West Eurasian ancestry one way or another so they are a less good comparison).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blessed7614 - Cyprus is in Asia and has West Asian genetics, very similar to those of Turkey and Euro-Mediterranean Jews. Even if the population is mostly Greek by language, their genetics are clearly different.
Crete and all Greece are not as genetically "oriental" as Sicily and Malta (and maybe also Calabria?). They are a very unique population in the context of Europe because they have lots of Syrian-Lebanese genetics (different to those of Anatolia-Cyprus and Palestine-Jordan). This is best explained by a Shekelesh/Sicel invasion in the Bronze-Iron ages' transition, assuming that they were from that region, what fits the genetics, the name (shekel = weight unit, especially of silver, later coin, thus Shekelesh = mercenaries, pirates or something like that) and the fact that they're described by the Egyptians as circumcised, unlike most other sea peoples.
1
-
@Ajemone - Greeks and other Balcanic peoples are very typical Europeans for their geography: they are somewhat close to Turkey-Caucasus-Kurdistan but that's expected and works also well for North-East Europeans who tend to Caucasus a lot because of Indoeuropean admixture (super-layer). Sicily tends not to Turkey-Caucasus but to Syria-Lebanon instead and does very strongly and shows up in every single PCA (and other types of analysis). This is not explainable by Phoenicians, who only settled the Western part of the island, nor by the Muslim century (too short and Tunisia-related), it should be older and IMO it is Sicel = Sekelesh, who arrived to the region along with Etruscans = Teresh in the Bronze-Age transition era.
Alternatively the slave plantation economy of the island that Syracusans first and Romans later established fed only or mostly on "Syrian" slaves (definitely the leaders of the First Servile War were from that region of Syria-Cilicia) but I'd rather expect them to be from "all over the place", follow no particular geographical pattern.
In any case I was not talking haplogroups but autosomal (nuclear recombinable) genetics. The Y-DNA signature of such Levant roots could be a balanced mix of J2 and J1. while one from the Pelasgo-Tyrsenians would be high in J2 but not J1, and Italy (not just Sicily but all of it, especially the "Roman", or should I say "Etruscan"? central region) is very strong in that lineage that is not at all Indoeuropean (R1a would be the most clear signature for these in Europe) nor Vasconic (G2a, E1b-V13, I2 Sardinian-Pyrenean, R1b in various cases even, all them documented in the archaeogenetics). Y-DNA J2 was also clearly expanded west of Italy by the Roman imperial colonization almost exclusively and is strongest where we know Rome founded the most colonies and where the Italian autosomal admixture is also strongest (Baetica = Andalusia).
1
-
1
-
@mr.purple1779 - Don't you understand the relevance of the Y-DNA? I have no idea who you are, probably random novice who has frequented some forums and got the wrong advice.I have a decade behind of being a global reference blogger on these matters under the nickname Maju (ask around or visit my old blog "For what they were we are"), I do understand the matter even in shallow inspection, I've trained for decades. I can be wrong but I'm not any ignoramus, please stop treating me like that.
Now pay attention because you're missing my point altogether: the two articles provide different data in terms on Y-DNA and that seems very important to explain the transition:
1. It seems that Eastern Scythians in the Altai region were rather strongly admixed with Uralics of Nganassan affinity, that is apparent in both their Y-DNA N and mtDNA C (both absolutely typical Uralic and totally unrelated to Altaics) and also the autosomal DNA. Considering all that it is even possible that they spoke an Uralic language and were not true Scythians (i.e. Indoeuropeans, Iranic speakers) but that we will never know for sure.
2. Later, when the Hunnic expansion happened, this local population (which for some weird reason you equate to "Western Huns") seem to have been Turkified only on the paternal side (reflects strongly on the Y-DNA but not on the mtDNA or autosomal parts).
You say that this is "continuity", I say that this is conquest and male replacement (but not female). I will add that this does not say much about the overall Western Turkics (whose Y-DNA is much more typically in the O3 and C2 haplogroups) but it is very informative for the Northern Turkic branch producing the Shaka and such, the only ones that are rich in Q1 (other than Altaians).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CrownTown10 - Why would you think that? Horse domestication seems to have two origins (western steppe and Iberia) because we know of two different mtDNA lineages (but only one of Y-DNA, which is from the steppe) and also because we have abundant evidence of South Iberian horse remains from the Chalcolithic (although the mtDNA basal genetic diversity is now greater in North Iberia).
On the other side, the main lactase persistance allele (the European+ one rs4988235-T, there are a few others with limited distribution in the Red Sea area) has a single origin, so, at least in Europe (and derived pops in this trait, such as the Fulani), the allele (and thus the phenotype in as much as it's genetically driven, what is not always clear) must have a single origin.
This is IMO somewhere in Aquitaine-Basque Country (again, thus probably related to the expansion of Y-DNA R1b-S116 and Bell Beaker/Artenacian) because it's here where the oldest TT (double lactase persistance allele) is found in minority populations at the military cemeteries of the Ebro (SJAPL and Longar, per Plantiga 2012, "Low prevalence of lactase persistence in Neolithic South-West Europe", EJHG). This strongly suggest that two allied but distinct populations (one CC, lactose intolerant and probably unadmixed EEF, the other TT, lactose tolerant and probably Paleo-admixed proto-Basque) were present in whatever battles those cemeteries represent, they were both present constantly along many centuries (SJAPL is significantly more recent than Longar) and only gradually admixed (SJAPL shows two individuals, 2/19, with CT genotype, Longar none).
Also we know from other studies that the consolidation of lactose tolerance in Germany is more recent and even more recent in Hungary. Relatedly Alentoft 2015 had many samples from "Bronze Age" (incl. Chalcolithic) Europe but not Western Europe, not west of the Rhine-North Sea line (in those days ethnic border between Indoeuropeans and Vasconics) and it was extremely striking that they were all lactose intolerant (at least in terms genetic).
So, in short, to me it's very clear that lactose tolerance genetics, Y-DNA R1b-S116 and autosomal genetics of the Basque (or ancient Iberian or Insular "Celtic") type are related and expanded primarily with Bell Beaker (but also associated demographic shifts which are a bit more obscure in France and Iberia).
A cause for this demographic shift was probably to a large extent the first known bubonic plague, which was brought by the Indoeuropean invasions, but, considering the importance of the LCT genetics, I would also think that famine was a factor (goats are excellent milk producers and extremely cheap to keep, they were the primary source of milk and dairies until recently in Europe).
Sorry to not have replied earlier but I missed notification somehow.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gianlucarossi5672 - That's a widespread problem with the Iron Age and also the Late Bronze Age in some areas, notably those affected by the Celto-Italic expansion under Urnfields culture (confusingly called "proto-Villanovan" in Italy).
Your point is IMO a very correct objection.
Sicilians do have a peculiar genetic distinctiveness but it is Syrian-like, not Moroccan-like. This has been shown in in many studies and IMO should correspond to the Shekelesh (proto-Sicels by destination but also probably proto-Phoenician by origin) migration to that area, which is probably associated to the Etruscan one c. 900 BCE (Tyrsenian = Teresh, probably from the area near Troy but not Troy itself, those would be the Tjekker = Teucrians rather -- this of course links to the legend of Aeneas = Wanax, so loved by the Romans but surely Etruscan in origin). Besides Sicilian genetics and namesakeness, my reasons to consider the Shekelesh Levantine in origin are two: (1) the Egyptians described them as circumcissed, in contrast to most other Sea Peoples, and (2) the name seems to relate to "shekel", which was then a weight unit, often used for silver (later coin as well) much like the Western pound (but of smaller weight), what seems to imply that they were a group of either mercenaries or pirates and not an ethnic nation strictly speaking (they'd be probably North Canaanites, proto-Phoenicians, but these city-states were often also vassal of Egypt, so it gets a bit confusing where exactly they operated from, Cyprus maybe?, Cilicia?, wandering around in ships?)
In any case in those days of the Late Bronze Age and earliest Iron Age, Italy suffered major political, ethnic and demographic changes; the LBA collapse did not only happen in the Eastern Mediterranean but also in the West, especially in Italy, driven first surely by the Celto-Italic expansion (Urnfields culture) and then by other events, in Italy the arrival of some Sea Peoples from the East and the clear archaeogenetic signature of migration of peninsular refugees to Sardinia, which was Vasconic in language all the way to Romanization as demonstrated by my acquaintance linguist Juan Martin Elexpuru ("Euskararen Aztarnak Sardinian?", a book I collaborated in with an appendix on prehistory and genetics, published in 2017 or 2016), and thus surely supportive of the "Aborigines", who were nearly erased by these radical changes -- Ligures were surely also Vasconic anyhow, as were the barely documented Ausones of Southern peninsular Italy, who are archaeologically shown to have piratically raided Greece often and IMO could be the same as the Weshesh of the Sea Peoples (Lat. singular of Ausones is Auso, which is phonetically more similar, the Nuraghic Sardinians are very obviously the Sherden).
1
-
@gianlucarossi5672 - I think I understand something of what you're saying but not fully. Do you mean that those anomalous Roman Era samples seem to be not just Berbers but a type of Berbers that was unadmixed with European Neolithic peoples (Cardium Pottery, EEF, Sardinian-like)?
If so, it'd be very intriguing because the West Iberian 10% North African component, of very mysterious origin (Bronze Age maybe?) seems to reflect an older type of Berber, which has stronger affinities to West Sahara than should be expected. Also it's apparent that modern Berbers, even if surely derived ethno-linguistically from late local HGs (plus the Cardium Pottery admixture) have their language unified in a much more recent timeline, quite possibly the barely pre-Roman time of the formation of the Numidian and Mauretanian realms. So, whatever the exact details, there were surely internal conquests and demographic changes in the region too.
A key detail is the presence of the "Paleolithic European" Y-DNA haplogroup I, not just in the Guanche mummies of Canary Islands (associated to R1b) but also in various populations of Sudan (again associated to high frequencies of R1b) but not in modern North Africans (among which R1b is c. 10% but there's no trace of I anymore). So there should have been significant rearrangements in North Africa but, because the archaeology is so badly understood, which ones is anybody's guess.
1
-
1
-
@Ajemone - Paleolithic people were surely more inbred, although I think that prehistoric reconstructions of demographics (for example in Europe) err a lot by the lower end, so I tend to favor their maximum estimates rather. This is because of the actual sizes of modern hunter-gatherers and also because if, as I happen to known from local studies, in the nearby district o Encartaciones-Castro, there was a population of maybe 150 people in the middle of the UP (Solutrean or Magdalenian, can't recall right now), and this was not at all the richest district in all the Franco-Cantabrian region (those were the ones of Dordogne but even nearby central Cantabria or many other areas were surely much richer), then you easily reach populations of 25,000 for all the country from Asturias to Provence and from the Pyrenees to the Loire, not 2,500.
They were somewhat inbred but not that much, another thing may be in poorer areas holding smaller populations like Moravia or Ukraine.
1
-
@Ajemone - I don't think Bell Beaker was "Indoeuropean" but rather a late Vasconic phenomenon at the core originated in Southern Europe 300 years before its translation to North Europe (via the Rhône probably), where it was a mixed bag rather. R1b-S116 is not an Indoeuropean haplogroup but clearly spread from "France", probably Aquitaine or somewhere nearby.
The real Indoeuropeanization of Italy and Western Europe only happened since the Urnfields culture, culminating with the Roman Empire, as many peoples were not yet Indoeuropean, from Sardinia and Liguria to the Atlantic Ocean, when Rome took over.
Now, Italy or Europe belongs to those who inhabit it, as happens with every country or region. People is people and democracy is the power of the people (should be at least). Thousands of years have passed through and History and Prehistory are good to know and understand, even cry about, but we are actually living present day History-in-the-making and our resposiblity is with those in the present and the future, not with those from the past. We can't change the past but maybe we can improve the present and future, maybe. Understanding the past is to better understand ourselves as product of history, not to fix what can't be fixed. Word of Basque.
The sad reality is that Humanity for all its occasional lights has got a very horrible history, hard to celebrate as many, especially in the far right, do. I love History but I know that History is mostly evil: ultimately History began after the militarist, classist and patriarchal elites of the Metal Ages took over everything (or almost so) and the end result was Rome: an oligarchic empire of colonial plantations and mines that wasted all the silver of Hispania and Dacia into importing silk and cinnamom from Asia for the posh patricians of Rome, while it brought many animal species to extinction at the anphitheaters of all the Empire.
I'm part Italian by recent ancestry: my grandpa came here as new Roman invader with Mussolini's 70,000 "volunteers" (he was probably one of the few actual volunteers) and married a local fascist also descendant from older invasions such as the last Carlist War, which had half of Basque youth forced to emigrate to America. I'm also descendant (mostly on my father's side) from native Basques who were probably here since the Neolithic, maybe with even Paleolithic and I identify as such Basque, but even these are admixed with posh invaders from the Middle Ages and partook in the savage destruction of Biscay's ecology by the Industrial Revolution of a century+ ago. Should I feel guilty? Nah, I'm not them and I've tried to do the right thing at my own peril: I'm not guilty and I'm constructively responsible to my capacity.
I do feel a bit alienated however. Let's build something better than this disaster of History. It's not easy at all but it's necessary. I did mention in passing those lights of the past: from achievement of some semblance of democracy in the ancient Greek cities, which were able to defeat Persia and Sparta but succumbed to Macedonia and Rome, to the glorious uprisings of Spartacus and the Western Bagaudae (peasant revolts). More modernly from Machiavelli and Petrarca to Garibaldi and the partigiani (yes there are also lights in Italy in spite of all), from the French to the Russian revolutions and beyond (from Bolivar to Che, from Vietnam to Burkina Faso). Thinking in the past is important but we must do it for better understanding how to shape today and tomorrow, not just for crying about it.
It's always a new world, life is always changing, nothing remains. I was last month re-reading Il Gattopardo and it surprised me to discover that it's not just about "changing something so nothing changes", in the end, the protagonist discovers to his dismay that maybe "that bearded Vulcan", Garibaldi, might have won after all, that maybe changes are happening after all at much faster pace than he hoped for.
1
-
1
-
1